CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF BIOMATERIALS IN OSTEOMYELITIS TREATMENT: LITERATURE REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction Various biomaterials and bone graft substitute technologies for use in osteomyelitis treatment are currently used in clinal practice. They vary in mode of action (with or without antibiotics) and clinical application (one-stage or two-stage surgery). This systematic review aims to compare the clinical evidence of different synthetic antimicrobial bone graft substitutes and antibiotic-loaded carriers in eradicating infection and clinical outcome in patients with chronic osteomyelitis. Methods Systematic review according to PRISMA statement on publications 2002-2023. MESH terms: osteomyelitis and bone substitutes. FREE terms: chronic osteomyelitis, bone infection. A standardized data extraction form was be used to extract data from the included papers. Results Publications with increased methodological quality and clinical evidence for biomaterials in osteomyelitis treatment were published in the last decades. High 85-95% eradication rates of osteomyelitis were observed for various resorbable Ca-P and/or Ca-S biomaterials combined with antibiotics and S53P4 bioactive glass. Level of evidence varies significantly between products. Antibiotic pharmacokinetic release profiles vary between resorbable Ca-P and/or Ca-S biomaterials. Conclusion Given the high 85-95% eradication rates of osteomyelitis by various resorbable Ca-P and/or Ca-S biomaterials combined with antibiotics and S53P4 bioactive glass, one-stage treatment is preferred. Surgeons should be aware of variations in mechanical properties and antibiotic pharmacokinetic release profiles between Ca-P and CA-s products. Mechanical, biological and antimicrobial properties of bioactive glass are formulation dependent. Currently, only S53P4 bioactive glass has proven antimicrobial properties. Based on this systematic review antibiotic loaded fleeces should be used with caution and restraint.